Why do almost all 'incels' blame their situation on looks?

Post Reply New Topic

Nice to talk to somebody that has taken courses about electromagnetic field theory too.

I don't think you need antennas or amplifiers to transmit electromagnetic signals. These actually appear as soon as a charged particles move. They also appear as side-effects of high frequency electronics, which is why we have EMC directives.

It's also been discovered that some birds can detect changes in the earth electromagnetic field, which means at least these have the required detector for static fields (and it's not an antenna).

Additionally, it's a bit hard to explain why some people cannot live in houses with a lot of electromagnetic fields, and we also have the issues of old computer screens that some people (myself included) had problems with.

So, I think you need to rethink the position that antennas, amplifiers, oscillators, and wires are required for creating electromagnetic fields. It's only how we create them with the means we invented.

Also, if we can detect a signal or not depends more on how sensitive the receiver is than how strong the sender is. I also expect some advanced coding being used because if we sent some general signal anybody could pick up and understand, we would be flooded with messages (not to mention the integrity aspect of it). So, I actually think evolution has worked quite a bit on this to create private systems as well as within-species only systems. Given the complexity of this, as well as the complexity of human verbal communication, I think evolution has used many 100s of millions of years on this, and so we can expect some advanced methods being used. If a signal has a really smart coding, it can be picked up even in the presence of lots of noise, which means the sender can be weaker, the receiver very sensitive, which will work on large distances. A smart coding requires some learning period, which I think is the reason why two people need some time to "sync" before they can communicate this way. I also think they must be unable to use normal verbal communication since the brain is lazy. And the reason typical humans cannot handle this very well is because they rely too much on verbal communication.

One might also speculate that the reason Temple Gradin and some other autistic people can communicate with animals is because they can tap into some of these systems in animals, and not because of "intuition" or other senses.



Some of the scenarios are a bit unspecific, but generally speaking it is this:

1. I don't do it with somebody I talk to or as part of typical social interaction. It should be at a distance (at least five meters or so) with no other contact.

2. I will look away as soon as the girl looks my way, and then, at a later time, repeat and look again. The purpose is not to have extended eye contact.

3. I never smile, use my tongue, fiddle with hair or other NT-typical flirting signals.

Yes, it used to be just women who had to be beautiful or else. Do you think the "Red Pill" ideology (I'm not sure what that is, exactly, beyond the reference to "The Matrix") is a response to today's dating apps?

They have to blame something...and it certainly can't be their sparkling, charismatic personaliies.

Indeed, you don't, if you're talking about very simple signals. But the question is whether our brains can transit an information-rich signal that another brain would be able to detect above its own internal electrical noise. That would be hard to do without an antenna and amplifier, it seems to me. And the signals you've hypothesized are ones complex enough to carry a lot of information.


The side-effects are noise, not the signal itself, and they interfere with other signals if the EMC directives are not followed.

Speaking of EMC: Your hypothesis would require the biological equivalent of EMC directives, so that the signals between any two people don't interfere with the signals between any two other people.


As you said, static fields, a very simple signal, not the complex information-rich kind of signal you're hypothesizing.


Being harmed by something doesn't necessarily imply that your body has an as-yet-undiscovered use for some other variant of the same thing, although it does suggest that as one possibility.

However, if you think this is an important clue that may be relevant to your hypothesis, have you looked into the electromagnetic specifics of what made the offending "old computer screens" different from other computer screens in ways that could conceivably be relevant?


I didn't say "wires." And, if our brains did contain anything like an antenna and an amplifier, I wouldn't expect them to have any obvious physical resemblance to the ones that humans have created via technology. Nevertheless I would expect them to have been detected by now via at least one of the many investigations that have been done into the brain's electrical activity.


I agree, your hypothesis implies very advanced coding. That's part of the problem, and part of the reason why it does require something like an antenna and an amplifier to transmit it so it isn't drowned out by noise.

Another requirement: You need to be able to receive the signal at a distance. What is the maximum distance, if any, in your experience?

Also, in your experience, does the signal go through walls? (In that case it can't be anywhere near the visible light frequency range.)


Yep.


No. On the contrary, it's easier to detect a simpler signal than a more complex one. It's true that some kinds of coding are more noise-resistant than others, e.g. digital is better than analog in this regard, but even the more noise-resistant signals can get drowned out if they aren't strong enough to begin with.


Large distances require that the signal be sufficiently strong when transmitted, no matter how sensitive the receiver.


Intuition or other senses are still the more likely explanation, it seems to me. And, yes, nonverbal people would need to develop them more keenly than others.


So, what aspects of the girl's response let you know whether you've been successful or not?

Solely based on looks applies only to online dating. Online dating is full of fakes, flakes, cat fish and scammers that can easily steal photos and make accounts. Solely relying upon online dating and getting upset by no success only reenforces negative self esteem and lowers confidence. Movie star, sports stars and rich celebrities are never going to be on free dating sites aimed at the masses.

The Red Pill is, allegedly, a school of thought and philosophy that teaches men how women's sexual attraction actually works, as opposed to how the mainstream media says it works. There are disagreements on that, no doubt, but it's how they self-identify

It goes without saying that dating apps influenced the development of the Red Pill. It was founded in 2012, when Tinder grew far and wide. But I don't know much else about its growth. When I discovered it, it was already pretty developed, so I missed its nascent years.

Talking doesn't require high bandwidths. We were able to send things similar to talking with morse code using a very low bandwidth of only a few Hz. Compare that to how much you can code onto a transmitter in the MHz or GHz area. Thus, while the coding probably is complex, a high bandwidth is not required. The signal could be sent with lots of redundant information and with ineffective coding compared to what we can achieve with things like TV broadcasts.

According to my experience, everything we exchange could easily be sent using a 1Hz channel. It's not images, not brain-waves and the exchange typically takes seconds.



I think this is "solved" by having lots of redundant information in the messages that the brain use as an "address". Could also be that everything is encrypted with a private key. That's why there is a "setup" phase before you can communicate.



I find it pretty much out of the question that it is the brain's electrical activity that is transmitted. That kind of signal has much too high bandwidth requirements.



Advanced coding doesn't need to mean high bandwidth. If you send the same thing 1000 times then noise can drown 999 of the messages and still detect the last one.



It varies a bit based on what can be transferred. Basic things like the direction sense work up to 300km, while more complex exchanges seem to require distances less than 10-20km (although it's gradual). I'd say the closer the more complex exchanges can be made (maybe down to 1km, when distance doesn't seem to be a factor anymore). I also think the direction sense sometimes gets messed up somewhat at close distances, and hot & dry weather seem to make the connection more error-prone.



Certainly. At least normal ones. I think the signals are in the MHz area, but it's possible, but less likely, that they could be in the kHz or GHz area too.

Another thing to consider is the click sounds that dolphins and whales emit. Scientists are unable to decode these, and they could actually be as complex as mind-to-mind communication. You cannot use electromagnetic fields in water, and so this could be an adaptation to sea living with similar complexity. It's also conceivable that bird song could be another example.



Definitely the repeat aspect & things happening outside of social interaction & conversation. A girl can look my way for no reason once, but if it happens repeatedly, then there is likely something more to it than chance.

Essentially what these birds have is a compass. See We Finally Know How Birds Can See Earth's Magnetic Field. And, as we both noted earlier, what they are detecting is a static field, not a signal.

I would further point out that the Earth is big, at least compared to any animal living on the Earth. Any change to the Earth's magnetic field would result from electromagnetically very powerful goings-on inside the Earth's core. The change (and the field itself) might be locally very small, but very big and powerful overall, relative to any electromagnetic goings-on within any animal's own body.

I've never experienced anybody communicating with me telepathically; nor have I ever communicated telepathically with another person.

Talking is sound, which is mechanical, not electromagnetic. And, without the aid of modern technology, our voices can be transmitted only over a very short range.


Specifically what all kinds of information do you believe can be transmitted this way? If I recall correctly, it included specific feelings and desires. The latter could be very complex, it seems to me.


Something like an address makes the signal more complex than it would otherwise be.


If not the brain, then what organ of the body do you believe does get used as the transmitter? Ditto the receiver?


You're talking about the kinds of distances for which even the simplest electromagnetic signal, from a source as small as some organ of the human body, definitely would require something like an amplifier and an antenna. And the amplifier would have to be big and powerful enough to be quite obvious -- unless there's something else in the natural world serving as a natural equivalent of cell phone towers, but that would need to be big and powerful enough to be quite obvious too.


They would need to be at least around 1 GHz, in order for the wavelength to be short enough not to require an antenna large enough to be highly visible.


Scientists have not been able to decode them, but at least there's no question that these signals exist. On the other hand, the alleged signals you're talking about, from human beings, have never been detected by scientists at all, as far as I'm aware.

Some crazy Antifa guy came running after me for wearing my shiny German helmet back in June. He preceded to corner me inside the dollar store and he said the same stuff again that my helmet was sick and get out of the country. I looked him right in the eyes and this was my response...."You're just jealous of me because I'm not afraid to be myself." He said, "Be yourself....wear the helmet, than. That's a nice helmet!" I only wear the helmet once a week, now. I don't support Antifa. I've decided that I'd let The Kinks back into my life and look up to Mick Avory again. It's what I've wanted for a while, anyways so I worked hard to make it possible.

I think that there are many incels who blame their situation on looks. The thing is that the same people don't do anything to change their own looks. They don't want to do the work.

Feelings and probably a few other things (like poking with happy feelings) are basic things (and not complex at all). However, I think it is possible to carry out a normal conversation this way, which would mean there has to be a path to send verbal information. That's not more complex than sending morse code. The only thing that is needed is to code sounds of speech.



I think both are in the brain, or possibly eyes (like the magnetic sensor of birds).



It is possible to build radio transmitters in the nanoscale: Nano transmitter

Also, creating a transmitter for the typical FM band around 100MHz that can reach a few kilometers could be done by an amateur using only a small 9v battery and a couple of centimeters of normal wire as an antenna: https://www.instructables.com/id/The-Ul ... ansmitter/

Going from a few kilometers to 300 km is only a factor 100 or so. Note that transmitters use a dB-scale which is logarithmic. If I remember it correctly doubling the signal results in a 6dB increase. Here we are talking about 7 (2^7 = 128) doublings or 43dB. If the detector was 43dB more sensitive, then the above device would work over the distance of 300km. In practice, the receiver would be flooded by noise, but by use of smart coding, it could still detect the signal.

I once was a radio amateur, and it certainly is possible to use only a small wire as an antenna for the 27MHz band as well. It might not be optimal, and you might damage the transmitter, but it certainly works.

IOW, I don't think it is impossible for evolution to figure out a solution that could transmit (and receive) electromagnetic signals a few 100kms at the nanoscale in a few 100s million years or more.

I also wonder why many ESP experiments use electromagnetically shielded rooms during their experiments? What exactly are they afraid of?



There is so much electrosmog right now so this is a daunting task. Would have been much easier to do before we had some much electronics and radio transmitters. Also, as anybody that has experimented with radios know, there is a lot of background noise present, and this was the case before much of the modern electronics and cellphones came into use as well.

I cannot find a study that confirms that birds also can see small changes in the magnetic field and one poorly performed study from the 60s that concluded they couldn't. I've seen people claim that the primary use of this for navigation is not as a compass but the small natural fluctuations in the field that birds might associate with a place they have previously been at. We might eventually be able to confirm (or reject) this.

I think at least some people (potentially more NDs, I don't know), also can detect water. I've experimented with this as well, and concluded that my mother (which originally showed me this a long time ago) and I had the same opinions of where water currents were located, and we could also conclude that most digged wells resided in crosses. I think flowing water might create small disturbances in magnetic fields which is possible to pick up.

How do you think birds usually migrate to similar locales year and year after year....some of which are thousands of miles from where they started?

Maybe not so different from how we humans would? We would remember things from along the path. If you travel over a vaste sea area, or at night, you obviously cannot use visual signs along the path, but if you can notice small changes in the earth's magnetic field, that could be used as a replacement.

Also, if you ever have used a compass, you would notice that knowing where north is is not sufficient to find your destination. You also must know your position to be able to use the compass to find the fastest way.

As a side note, I sometimes use my direction sensor to my love to amuse people that I know where north is. That builds on me knowing where she is (and, of course, roughly where I am), and then I can tell people where north is. Works very well even within shopping malls with strange forms. So, no, I don't have a built-in compass, but under the right conditions, I can still tell where north is.